Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hasan MUHAMMED, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael A. Corriero, J.), rendered January 8, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and also convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years and 41/212 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility. Any inconsistencies in the victim's testimony were minor and did not detract from the credibility of the account he provided.
The court properly declined to deliver an adverse inference charge for the People's inability to locate a police medical treatment of prisoner form. This form did not constitute Rosario material (People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881 [1961], cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64 [1961] ), because the subject matter of the form did not relate to the subject matter of the police witness's testimony. While defendant asserts a possible connection between the form and the witness's testimony, we find such a connection to be extremely tenuous. In any event, even assuming this form existed and that it was Rosario material, there is no reasonable possibility that its nondisclosure materially contributed to the result of the trial (see CPL 240.75).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 25, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)